Thursday, April 21, 2016

The end of politics as we have known it?

The emergence of populist, extremist candidates has
dominated the public's attention in the 2016 presidential primaries and
caucuses, although there is no assurance that one of those candidates will
eventually win election.

On the left, Bernie Sanders' popularity signifies discontent
with the center and business as usual. Sanders is a self-identified socialist
who has caucused with the Democrats in Congress but steadfastly refused to
align himself with that party. Nevertheless, he now is in a hard fought battle with
Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

On the right, in a once crowded field of more than
a dozen only three candidates remain. Donald Trump has effectively tapped into
an angry electorate's desire for political change. Many of his supporters feel
disenfranchised. A true demagogue, Trump has modified his positions to cater to
the far right GOP base. At times, some of his comments appear designed to
attract media attention while not necessarily representing his actual political
views. He styles himself as a dealmaker, but a close examination of those deals
raises serious questions about his business acumen, e.g., several of his
business have gone bankrupt, leaving him personally unscathed financially but
harming his creditors and investors. Trump's main opponent at this point in the
contest is Ted Cruz, a senator with whom other senators find cooperation very
problematic. Cruz, like Trump, seems happy to be a loner and taps into much of
the same anger as has Trump has. The only non-extremist remaining is John Kasich
who has struggled to gain traction with voters.

Electorates tend to have normal distributions,
i.e., graphically represented by a bell shaped curve. Consequently, effective governance
generally occupies the center of the political spectrum formed by the
electorate. Attempting to govern from far right or far left (as opposed to
somewhat right or left of center) imposes the views of a minority upon the
majority and can set the stage for political disruption, perhaps even
revolution. Sharp political swings in some South American countries, in which
government shifts abruptly from the far right to far left or vice versa,
exemplify these problems. In the United States, post-Civil War reconstruction
provides the clearest and saddest examples of this pattern. Policies and laws that
might have fully integrated freedmen into the nation's political and economic
mainstream fell victim to struggles between Radical Republicans and white
supremacists (for a fuller exposition of this history, cf. Eric Foner, A Short History of Reconstruction).

Effective governance in the center entails civility
(i.e., respecting one's opponents and avoiding ad hominem attacks) and
compromise by finding common ground on goals if not means (i.e., people have
shared values and nobody has all of the good ideas). Neither civility nor
compromise seems very popular in 2016.

The 2020 election cycle seems likely to be more
polarized and divisive than the current election. If so, at what point does
representative democracy stop functioning? When will power, which abhors a
vacuum, gravitate to such an extent to the presidency that the President
becomes a de facto dictator?

For example, national government provides essential
services upon which most people depend. These essential services include national
defense, transportation infrastructure, law enforcement, enforcement of health
and safety regulations, social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and much more.
The President lacks statutory authority to spend federal funds until Congress
appropriates them. In the past, brief government shut downs have occurred when
Congress failed to appropriate funds. What might happen if Congress becomes so dysfunctionally
polarized that it is unable to pass spending authorizations for an entire
fiscal year? Alternatively, what might happen if Congress and the President are
so polarized, and Congress unable to override a Presidential veto, that the government
must operate for an entire fiscal year without fiscal authorizations? You may have
be able to suggest other scenarios caused by government paralysis.

Furthermore, the U.S. political system presumes a
two-party system. If the Republican and Democratic parties collapse at the same
time, what will happen? Nations with more than two major political parties can
sometimes function through coalition governments, a more viable political
alternative in which the head of government is a prime minister who is not also
the head of state (Great Britain, unlike the US, is an example of this). Thus,
in the U.S., a multi-party political system will more probably result in government
paralysis, or near paralysis, than in effective government. Weak, ineffectual
government will inevitably degrade security, diminish economic growth and
competitiveness, increase the federal government's cost, and erode democracy's underpinnings.
Italy, which has a prime minister and multiple weak parties, illustrates the long-term
consequences of ineffectual and ineffective governance.

New political parties have occasionally replaced an
existing U.S. political party, e.g., the Whigs disappeared as the Republicans
rose to national prominence. The odds seem to be against two new political
parties simultaneously replacing the two now dominant parties. However, if only
one of the current parties collapses (or is shattered into irreconcilable
fragments), perhaps a new party will emerge, forming new coalitions, articulating
a fresh agenda, and constituting a vibrant, healthy opponent for the other
party.

Representative democracy is not ideal, but it is
the best system of governance of which we know. I remain optimistic about the
future of democracy in the U.S. I do not think that the United States is at
risk of devolving into a collection of independent states, as might happen with
Great Britain. Nor do I believe that most Americans want tyranny, even though I
am persuaded that most Americans want good governance and are unhappy with the current
performance of Congress, the presidency, and probably the judiciary.

Hopefully, a plurality of citizens – what Richard
Nixon once described as the silent
majority – will decide to act. This silent majority (albeit one with a
different composition than the one Nixon identified) by restoring civility to
public discourse, becoming more involved in political processes, courageously voting
for the common good instead of self-interest, and pushing elected officials to
govern effectually through compromise and respect for the dignity of all can
revitalize American democracy.